Peace! they are both great cars and the reality is the time difference between the two regardless of which is faster leaves it to the driver.

hey.....i agree on this 100%. i also think that all those laptime are just a bunch of bull. but i would like to believe CD people on this topic, because i am 100% positive that they know MUCH more then 99.9% of people in here. and just to let you know again, i am not the one who started this argument.....i personally dont care whats 1 sec faster then another, even though i did choose RWD for performance (mainly because i am coming from e46 M3). btw....I love driving in snow every chance i get, i also ski alot and therefore go up north often. M3 with studless winter tires was better then my A4 with performance winter set....(probably was a bad set, but still....)

5. Yes - search for the Hockenhiem track. There was also another test track that showed the same.

Hockenheim short track record does not show a time for the Xi.

__________________

The hell I don't! LISTEN, KID! I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I'm out there busting my buns every night! Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!

That page must have some errors. It also lists the 328i convertible with the same lap time at ranking 57. Must be an amazing driver considering both those times are faster than some cars that are normally much faster than both of those.

That page must have some errors. It also lists the 328i convertible with the same lap time at ranking 57. Must be an amazing driver considering both those times are faster than some cars that are normally much faster than both of those.

I was hoping that you would realize....but i guess not... Anyone can post laptimes over there, and M3 is not faster then Lamborgini, or Porsche Cayman S, or Ferrari, or R8. Just like xi is not faster then i. All those laptimes are posted by random people that might have not even driven the cars.

You probably didnt know that, but in order to get some remotely accurate numbers on track, the driver MUST be the same, road conditions MUST be the same, and air temp. also MUST be the same, and most importantly tires MUST be the same. I am sorry, I just dont understand how a person who knows something about cars can actually find those track numbers useful for an argument.......< if this is not clear, then arguing about x-drive vs rwd vs other awd is just pointless.

and just for the record N54 and N55 engines are almost identical in performance......some say N54 is faster and others say N55 is.......

1. 90% of people in this thread (and XI owners) know that X-Drive is not for performance
2. Bimmermag stated that its not for performance
3. Car and Driver stated that 335i handles better then 335xi (pretty obvious that they tested and tracked on both)
4. And then there is M3 which for some weird reason is RWD....
5. NOT a single source said that XI is faster on track and/or a better track car.

In this whole thread there are 2 or 3 ignorant people that said XI has better performance, and they obviously dont know what they are talking about.

1. X-drive is not for performance but an 335xi is a car designed for performance. I wonder if you can understand that.
2. good for you
3. no facts, again they reinforce you opinion, they must be right. end of story.
4. not really sure why you think this is relevant to the discusion
5. um yeah they have been linked already

^ This ignorant post is the only reason why I made my 1st comment in this thread.

Nice, out of context. This approach is consistent with everything you type: Pull out what you want to believe and ignore as many facts as possible.

What i have been consistently trying to point out is that you don't sacrifice obtaining a performance car when you buy a 335xi. You have been doing an even better job lately of winning that arguement for me by posting these more recent laptimes. The closeness of the two cars (no matter who is in front of who) further illustrates that you can have your awd and your performance in one car. This car performs extraordinary feets at the track and in the snow. Those who tell you otherwise are ignoring the FACTS.

N55 engine. The N54 which is a direct comparison to the N54 XI is 126.

The N55 is also rumored to be a slower engine than the N54.

Read my sig. Any of these "comparisons" are pointless, unless it serves to illustrate MY point.

__________________

The hell I don't! LISTEN, KID! I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I'm out there busting my buns every night! Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!

I will point out, that this argument is like the age old argument between manual and automatic drivers. Everyone will defend their choices to death because it's what they drive, and will never acknowledge that the other side is correct.

I happen to drive two very different cars, one for daily and one for track, but both see some quality time on the track as well. Both cars weight about the same (3,150 is the official quoted spec from the factory), both cars make roughly the same HP (330hp/268ft-lbs for the RWD, "305hp/296ft-lbs" in ricer math for the AWD), both cars share similar suspension design (MacStrut up front, 5 link rear), and both cars have similar torsional rigidity numbers (32,000Nm for the RWD, 28,500 for the AWD). I'm only saying this because I know I'll get a ton of flack from both camps for what I'm about to say, so I'm "qualifying" it with a little background...

Anyone who thinks one system is better than the other in any situation is smoking crack.

There. I said it. I'm going to take a step further on this argument and say that this is like the Special Olympics because everyone is a winner in this argument in their own minds. The truth of the matter is, there is no clear winner in this debate in that the AWD system doesn't really offer a real traction benefit until you've reached a certain HP plateau. Those that say, well, if AWD doesn't offer any true performance benefits, then why was it banned when Audi used it in racing? The operative word here is RACING. Where grip levels are low for the type of racing it was designed for and the engine makes plenty of power to overcome grip solely to the rear wheels. Therefore a AWD system in a high HP application for low grip situations is ideal. On the flip side of the coin, very few cars make 450+ at the crank. And even at that, on dry pavement 450+ HP won't be breaking traction all the time unless you drive like a total f**ktard. True benefit of using an AWD type system where power can be split to multiple axels only comes in handy on high grip situations when you can easily exceed 500hp. Otherwise any additional hardware is all going to add weight.

There. I said it again. Using hardware designed and applied to RACING as example of how one or the other is superior in a street car application is like, well, arguing about which Princess Leia is hotter. However, I will point this out to you using simple logic that actually makes sense. In the upper echelon of racing, where GRIP is king, RWD dominate because if you have more grip than you have power majority of the time, the add weight to split power up to the front is a penalty. RWD is the ideal layout here. In the upper echelons of racing, where little grip is available, like rally racing, AWD dominate because you need to maximize the use of power to the available grip.

In my experience of using both the RWD platform and AWD platform for track, I can honestly say that given the choice I'll probably take the RWD to the track more, but not for the chassis format, but the RWD is already equipped with R-comps and well, it's the BMW and I am driving it to BMW CCA events. However, I'll likely take the AWD to local autocrosses because it's ability to split power to the front seems to make it easier to navigate the much tighter course and frankly? It's far more comfortable in the wagon than the small 2 seat coupe. But I will say this. I took the AWD (okay, let's stop the pretenses here. '09 WRX wagon with some minor engine mods) to Buttonwillow in April when it's try, and then returned to Buttonwillow again in June in the RWD (MZ4 Coupe). In between the two events I took the WRX Wagon to Laguna Seca (it was WET). At Buttonwillow when the conditions were favorable (dry both times), the MZ4 Coupe was the superior car even if it had been in stock form on street tires (I've been to BW hundreds of times in the MZ4 Coupe in stock form on street tires). At Laguna Seca when it was wet? The WRX was churning out quick laps after quick laps despite the mixed conditions (it was pouring at one end of the track, turn 11, and bone dry at turn 5).

But anyone saying that AWD doesn't have performance roots or advantages? You're wrong. And anyone saying that AWD is superior to RWD in performance? You're wrong too. At the end of the day? You're all wrong. I'm right.

__________________

The hell I don't! LISTEN, KID! I've been hearing that crap ever since I was at UCLA. I'm out there busting my buns every night! Tell your old man to drag Walton and Lanier up and down the court for 48 minutes!

Ease up...BMW is the ultimate compromise car...its the best of all worlds

for us in the north, we like our AWD

I'm sure every XI owner would love a RWD car..but for some of us with family and for our own safety...we just prefer AWD up in the north...thats all there is to it

who cares which one is 0.00000005 sec faster around a lap or even 5 secs faster....no one is tracking their XI (minority)...its mostly a car we use to get to and from HOME!!!! I need to clear my poorly maintained snow covered neighbourhood, which has multiple pathces of solid ice during the winter.

The XI system is not that basic. It is one of the only AWD systems that can vary power 100% f/r. Most others have a limit.

Sorry to bring this thread up (but i got some info), apparently cheaper versions of Quattro in TT and A3 work the same as BMW X-drive (with computerized clutch packs) and also can transfer power up to 100%. So it turns out that 100% transfers are not ideal for performance, thats why B7 S4 and RS4 use 40/60 (old technology). Also "clutch packs" AWD systems are used because its very easy to integrate into FWD or RWD car to make it AWD. With torsen system (or others) you actually have to redesign and redo the whole system from the start.

Now the newer Quattro system with sport differential used in B8 models can transfer torque from front to back, and from left to right as well. And I haven't even seen any comparisons with this setup yet, only read that a car handles really like on rails.....

And thats not it, the very new torque vectoring Quattro is used in 2010 B8 RS5 which is supposed to be even better then 3 above.

Sorry to bring this thread up (but i got some info), apparently cheaper versions of Quattro in TT and A3 work the same as BMW X-drive (with computerized clutch packs) and also can transfer power up to 100%. So it turns out that 100% transfers are not ideal for performance, thats why B7 S4 and RS4 use 40/60 (old technology). Also "clutch packs" AWD systems are used because its very easy to integrate into FWD or RWD car to make it AWD. With torsen system (or others) you actually have to redesign and redo the whole system from the start.

Now the newer Quattro system with sport differential used in B8 models can transfer torque from front to back, and from left to right as well. And I haven't even seen any comparisons with this setup yet, only read that a car handles really like on rails.....

And thats not it, the very new torque vectoring Quattro is used in 2010 B8 RS5 which is supposed to be even better then 3 above.

Nice. I had a new S4 sideways on an on ramp steering with the gas pedal. New rear diff option is amazing.